Hegtelattoe deference bureau. 

JAMES N. MOORE, Director. 



BILL DRAFTING 



BY 
JAMES McKIRDY, Assistant Director. 



IIARRISBURG : 

C. E. AUGHINBAUGH, PRINTER TO THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

1912. 



Uegisrtattue deference bureau. 

JAMES N. MOORE, Director. 



BILL DRAFTING 



BY 
JAMES McKIRDY, Assistant Director. 



HARRISBURG: 

C. E. AUGHINBAUGH, PRINTER TO THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

1912. 



*> 



/ 

<cV v ' 



«r*=0 



to, W 5w 



(2) 



PREFACE. 



This outline of some of the essentials of "Bill Drafting" 
was prepared as a paper to be read at the Annual Meeting of 
the National Association of State Libraries, held at Ottawa, 
Canada, in June 1912. This edition is issued in response to 
numerous requests for copies. 

While the subject is treated in the barest outline, it is hoped 
that this article may lead to a wider knowledge and discus- 
sion of a subject so vital to our legislation in Pennsylvania. 

James McKirdy, 
Assistant Director, 
Legislative Reference Bureau 



(3) 



it 



(4) 



BILL DRAFTING* 



When I received from our worthy President a request that 
I prepare for this meeting a paper on Bill-drafting, I was 
greatly tempted to decline. There are so man) r among you, 
by learning, by ability and by experience, better qualified 
than I to undertake this work, that it seemed presumptuous 
in me to accept. However, when I came to realize thoroughly 
that the chief function of a paper read at our meetings is to 
stimulate thought and discussion, my misgivings left me in a 
measure; and it is with a lighter heart, as well as a deep ap- 
preciation of the honor, that I essay the task. 

Before taking up the subject in detail, I need hardly do more 
than refer briefly to the great popular outcry of the present 
time against our laws and our methods of making and inter- 
preting them. To the mind of the average man the making 
of laws is one of the easiest things in the world. The electors 
all over our broad land go to the polling place and cast their 
ballots for legislative representatives chosen at random from 
among the people. And these legislators, the electors think, 
must, through some mystic power, become ipso facto vested 
with the skill and the knowledge requisite in drafting and 
enacting wise and comprehensible laws. 

As Ordronaux in his work on Constitutional Legislation 
says, "The right to make laws being the political heritage of 
every citizen in a republic, the knowledge necessary to frame 
them is assumed to come to him by intution." Yet, to quote 
from Mill on "Representative Government, " "There is hardly 
any kind of intellectual work which so much needs to be done, 
not only by experienced and exercised minds but by minds trained 
to the task through long and laborious study, as the business of 
making laws." But among thinking men, among those whose 

*Paper read at the annual meeting of the National Association of State 
Libraries, held at Ottawa, June, 1912. 

5 



thoughts ultimately are carried into action, there is an in- 
creasing appreciation of the necessity of greater knowledge, 
of greater care and skill in the drafting of our laws. How is 
this to be brought about? We cannot change our form of 
government. It must still continue to be representative in 
theory at least, however it may be in practice. We cannot 
choose as our representatives only those who have the skill and 
experience necessary in the drafting of bills. How then, is 
the problem to be solved? A number of solutions have been 
proposed : some very practical ; some absurd in the extreme. 
The solution which seems to promise the best results, and the 
one to which we shall, for our present purposes, confine our 
attention, is the one that aims to provide for the members of 
the state legislature a permanent body of men, skilled in the 
drafting, of legislative bills, and thoroughly familiar w r ith the 
laws of the particular state and the judicial decisions thereon, 
specialists in lawmaking, as it were. From his constitu- 
tents the legislator will ascertain the defects in the existing 
law, or the new phases in modern society that necessitate new 
legislation. The draftsman receiving these ideas can put 
them into the form of a bill, which if it becomes a law. 
will fit into and form a homogenous part in the general 
statute law of the state. Thus there will arise in time a new 
profession, that of the specialist in legislation, the legislative 
draftsman. 

Before taking up the main subject of Bill-drafting, it might 
not to be amiss to discuss briefly the qualifications requisite in 
a member of this new profession. Please remember that we 
are now talking of the ideal draftsman. None of us can at- 
tain this ideal; but toward it we may ever strive as to an 
eagerly sought goal. 

In the first place, the ideal draftsman must have the faculty 
of expressing clearly and succinctly his ideas in words. How- 
ever great his learning, however long his experience, if he can- 
not cloth his ideas in suitable language, he must leave bill- 
drafting to others. Lawyers do not often have this faculty; 
judges rarely possess it; and, unfortunately, it is often lack- 
ing among the members of the legislature. As a writer in a 
recent number of the American Law Review savs : "It is 



foolish to assume that all lawyers can draft statutes. Such 
work requires a concentration of mind and of expression that 
few men have." This power of concentration and expression, 
however, may be cultivated by assiduous practice. I shall 
refer to this later. The draftsman might profitably pay heed 
to the advice of the late Justice Stephen of England, who 
said that he "was not accustomed to use language with that 
degree of precision which is essential to everyone who has 
ever had to draft Acts of Parliament, which, although they 
may be easy to understand, people continually try to mis- 
understand, and in which, therefore, it is not enough to attain 
to a degree of precision which a person reading in good faith 
can understand ; but it is necessary to attain, if possible, to a 
degree of precision which a person reading in bad faith can- 
not misunderstand. It is all the better if he cannot pretend 
to misunderstand it." 

The next thing that we shall ask of our draftsman is a 
wide knowledge of the law of his particular state. This is 
an obvious necessity. Without a clear and comprehensive 
knowledge of his state law as a whole, he is unable to judge 
either of the form or the fitness of the bill he may be called 
upon to frame. This knowledge must include not only the sta- 
tutory law, but as well the decisions thereon by the various 
courts. A careful study of these decisions will often show- 
both the strength and the shortcomings of the laws framed 
by the legislature of his state. 

Further than this, he must have an intimate acquaintance 
with the constitution of his own state, and of the judicial in- 
terpretations of the various sections of the same. Unless he 
knows the limits within which, by the organic law, he must 
labor, he is unable to judge of the possible validity of his bill 
should it become a law. Another set of conditions must be 
familiar to him, namely, those imposed upon the several states 
by the federal constitution. He should, by repeated reading 
and study, become thoroughly acquainted with its provisions 
and with the judicial interpretations made thereon by the 
Supreme Court of our land. 

Lastly, the draftsman must carefully study the standard 
works on construction of statutes. Bill-drafting is synthetic; 

7 



statutory construction is analytic The one is the converse of 
the other. By careful study of precedents in construction our 
draftsman will learn to avoid the pitfalls and dangers that 
others have encountered. By careful attention to this the 
draftsman will leave less work for the courts to do, and will 
go far toward removing that ground of common reproach ; 
that the judges often make our laws for us. 

Let us assume, then, that our draftsman possesses all these 
requirements, what must he next do? He must practice, 
practice, practice. He must examine laws; not with an eye 
single to the content, but with his mind centered on their 
phrasing. Have the ideas been expressed clearly? Have 
they been expressed briefly? Could the ideas have been 
stated otherwise and have gained in clearness and brevity by 
the change? He must answer all these questions. He must 
recast laws. He must strive to compress; to be concise; to 
express himself with a minimum of w r ords and yet with a 
maximum of clearness. As Ilbert, the official draftsman of 
the British Parliament, says, "Every superfluous word may 
raise a debate in Parliament and a discussion in court." Our 
draftsman must look for models, and study them. He must 
find out the secret of their clearness and their brevity; and 
then practice, practice, practice. A valuable aid in this di- 
rection are the little manuals on precis writing, published 
mostly in England. A careful study of them will greatly 
repay the draftsman for the time and effort he bestows on it. 

Our draftsman, our ideal, with all the knowledge and skill 
required by study and practice, is now ready to enter on his 
labors, ready to begin actual, practical work. This brings us 
to the real theme of this paper: Bill-drafting. 

In laying down what I think are the fundamental rules of 
this difficult subject, I do not wish to be understood as even 
intimating that the following suggestions are more than a 
resume or outline of its salient features. A text-book on Bill- 
drafting remains to be written. This paper is intended only 
as a summary of a few, a very few, of the leading principles. 

In the first place, the draftsman should have a clear, com- 
prehensive idea of the subject of his bill. There is a Avell 
defined distinction between the subject and the purpose of a 
legislative measure. For example, let us say the draftsman is 

8 



asked to prepare a bill restricting the carrying of concealed 
weapons. The subject of this bill is the regulating or perhaps 
even the prohibiting of the carrying of such weapons. The 
purpose of the bill is to prevent the carrying of the weapons, 
and thus conserve the peace and security of the citizens. But 
it is clear that unless the law is very faithfully and rigidly 
enforced, the carrying of such weapons will not be prevented 
The word "prevent" then should not be used in the title of 
such bill. This distinction may seem over-refined, judging 
from our example ; but if the draftsman will always bear this 
distinction in mind, he will attack his problems much more 
intelligently than would be the case if he totally neglected to 
note this difference. 

As an aid to a clear comprehension of the subject of his 
bill he must, if he can, supplement the suggestions received 
from the legislator or department chief with knowledge of 
his own of the actual conditions which call for this bill. A 
good draftsman must be a wide reader. He must at any 
cost keep closely in touch with the trend of modern legislation, 
not alone in his own state but in all modern countries. He 
must have a good working knowledge of the latest political 
and sociological theories. And what is more, he must know 
the leading arguments both for and against them. He must 
know well the local conditions obtaining in his own state, 
and not only in the entire state, but also in the more important 
subdivisions of it. 

Having then a good grasp of the subject of his bill, and a 
more or less intimate knowledge of the conditions which call 
for the measure, he must first examine carefully the laws of 
his state to see if there is not already on the statute books a 
law covering this very subject. Perhaps there may be one, 
but not quite in point ; one which, however, by a slight amend- 
ment might serve the purpose well. If the amendment then 
will answer, let him draw his bill accordingly. And in this 
connection he should always bear in mind that he should 
be practical. He is dealing not with abstract theories 
but with actual conditions — with actual, practical men and not 
with shadows. Let him take Lord Turing's apothegmn to 
heart : "Bills are made to pass as razors are made to sell." 
In other words, he must remember that the exigencies at- 

9 



tending actual lawmaking easily determine the fate of the 
measure he has drafted; or if not the fate, they determine its 
final form or arrangement ; so that, ceteris paribus, an amend- 
ment or a supplement is easier to pass than a new or original 
measure. 

Next, the draftsman must study the decisions of the various 
courts, especially the courts of last resort, to ascertain how 
this particular subject has been treated by the judiciary, or 
how similar bills have been regarded. This is always of the 
highest importance and should never be overlooked. 

We shall assume, though, that a new measure is necessary, 
and not an amendment. If the subject is one where the 
conditions are not peculiar to his state, the drafsman should 
go over the laws of other states to see what the legislatures 
there have done on that point. If a law is found that wholly 
or partially suits his purpose, he must see how it has been 
construed by the courts. It is a well known rule of construc- 
tion, that where a statute of another jurisdiction is adopted in 
whole or in part by a state and enacted as a law by the state 
adopting it, it is presumed that the judicial construction of 
the statute made by the courts of the first state is adopted 
along with the statute. And this rule applies generally to single 
words or phrases borrowed from other enactments. In this 
construction defects may have been pointed out or ambiguities 
explained. He should, furthermore, ascertain, if possible, 
how the law has operated in that state and whether it has 
proved to be practical and capable of easy enforcement. 

The draftsman should not overlook the laws of the other 
English-speaking countries: Great Britain, Canada and Aus- 
tralia. Most excellent work along the lines of sensible legis- 
lation and the proper drafting of bills is being done in those 
countries. 

But with all this, he must guard against mere copying of the 
work of others. Nothing that man does is perfect ; so the ideal 
draftsman will always strive to improve on the work of other 
draftsmen, howsoever great.be the fame they have. 

We assume that in all his work so far our draftsman has 
kept sedulously in mind the constitutional limitations of his 
own state and of the United States. Of course, to us in Penn- 

10 



sylvania, more than in almost any other state, this is of para- 
mount importance. But even in states where the restric- 
tions are not so great, it is well not to lose sight of these pos- 
sible limitations that determine, possibly, the scope of the 
measure being drafted. And while on this point I may be 
permitted a suggestion that might prove helpful. An ana- 
lytically indexed list of subjects upon which legislation is for- 
bidden by the state constitution, or by the national constitu- 
tion, should be prepared and referred to very frequently. 
In this list should be included the restrictions, not amounting 
to a prohibition, mentioned in the aforementioned constitu- 
tions. 

Coming down now to the actual work of preparing the bill, 
the draftsman should sketch out his measure in rough outline. 
This sketch should show briefly the purport of each proposed 
section; its relative importance and its relative position. 
These sections should be arranged in logical sequence. The 
beginner will be surprised to learn how great a bearing this has 
on the actual consideration of the measure by the legislature, 
and on its construction by the courts. A good draftsman will 
always recognize the great role psychology plays in legislation ; 
and, let me say it with due deference, in judicial matters. That 
which is carefully and logically arranged is easier to under- 
stand, and induces a more friendly and favorable consid- 
eration than one which imposes a greater burden on the 
memory and the understanding. 

The draftsman should make his sentences short and his 
sections small. This is not always possible; but is always 
desirable. Naturally it makes for ease in understanding the 
bill, and minimizes the possibility of error. A long and com- 
plex clause should be cut up into sub-sections. Long, in- 
volved sentences, so frequently seen in bills, are an abomina- 
tion. If the nature of the subject is such that a classification 
or an enumeration of persons or things is necessary, they may 
be arranged under numbered or lettered heads, with a general 
clause referring to them as a whole. 

When the bill has been drafted the title should be drawn, 
and not before then. In Pennsylvania and a number of other 
states the title of a statute is of prime importance, being, in 

11 



fact, a part of the bill. Some constitutions require that it 
state clearly the purport of the bill. It is essential, then, that 
the title be drafted last to lit the bill ; and not, as is often the 
case, the bill to fit the title. And when the title is drawn, it 
should be read in connection with each section of the bill to 
the end that it may clearly express the whole subject of the 
measure. On the other hand, the draftsman should not fall 
into the error of making it an index of the contents of the bill. 
This is not only not necessary but even dangerous, as the 
courts in their construction of the statute may infer that the 
items enumerated in the bill are all that the legislators 
intended to enact, and therefore, sections not thus indexed 
may be declared unconstitutional. A good method is to make 
the title as general and as brief as possible. 

Thus far I have confined myself to a rough outline of the 
qualifications requisite in an ideal bill draftsman, and what 
might loosely be termed the technique of drafting. There 
remain to be considered a number of general rules 
which must be ever born in mind by one drafting a legislative 
measure. I shall not attempt to formulate these rules in set 
terms, but shall merely offer and discuss them as suggestion? 
recommended to the careful consideration of anyone who 
wishes to become proficient in his work. Nor, furthermore, 
does the arrangement of them, or their relative position, have 
any bearing on their importance. 

I shall begin with the subject of definitions, although in the 
eyes of many this is of least importance. There is no one 
who does not know that nine-tenths of all discussions in this 
world could be avoided if the disputants at the outset would 
agree on their definitions. So it is in bill-drafting. In order 
to make things clear beyond the shadow of a doubt, it has be- 
come customary of late years to define certain terms which 
lie at the heart of the subject of the bill. There is hardly any 
doubt regarding the advisability of this. One great authority 
in England advises against them, but advances no sound 
reasons in favor of his position. In this country at least the 
practice seems to be a growing one, and has been adopted by 
the ablest workers in this field. There is, however, some dis- 
pute as to the proper place of the definitions; whether they 

12 



should be placed at the beginning or at the end of the bill. 
I hold most emphatically with those who would place them in 
the first section. If they are so placed, the lawmaker, the 
judge, the lawyer, or the layman, reading the law, starts forth 
with a clear idea of the words and phrases which are used 
most frequently in the law, or which are of the greatest im- 
portance in understanding it. 

But in the definitions great care should be exercised to use 
no w r ord nor phrase that is ambiguous. In some states the 
plan is being adopted of having the legal definitions of certain 
frequently recurring w^ords and phrases grouped in one act, 
known as a Construction Act, or Interpretation Act. Great 
Britain set us an example in this regard years ago. 

The draftsman should never in the same bill use a word in 
different senses ; nor should he use different words to express 
the same thing. 

The draftsman should be very careful in his use of adjec- 
tives and relative pronouns ; and still more careful in his use 
of participles used as adjectives after the noun or nouns they 
modify. English is a language practically devoid of inflec- 
tions, so that the meaning of a word is greatly influenced by its 
relative position. 

"Nouns should be used in preference to pronouns, even 
though the noun has to be repeated." As Thring says: 
"Repetition of the same w-ord is never a fault in business 
composition if an ambiguity is thereby avoided. " 

Some draftsmen pay great attention to the tense of the 
verbs they use. Lord Thring says : "Acts of Parliament 
should be deemed to be always speaking, and, therefore, the 
present or past tense should be adopted, and "shall" should 
be used as an imperative only, and not as a future." This is, 
however, to my mind an open question, to be settled by each 
draftsman for himself. 

The question whether a sentence in a bill should be put in 
the affirmative or in the negative form is an important one. 
To quote Lord Thring again : "The greatest caution must 
be used in putting a sentence in a negative form, as it makes 
the performance of the conditions a matter of absolute neces- 
sity, and the omission of the smallest portion of them will 

13 



render certain acts altogether nugatory. On the other hand, 
if the affirmative expression alone be used, the court will 
consider the enactments as to the conditions as directory and 
dispense with them on due cause being shown for their omis- 
sion" As an example of the negative form let us take the 
following: "No appeal shall be entertained unless the follow- 
ing conditions have been complied with." In this case, un- 
less certain conditions are compiled with, an appeal may not 
be entertained. Let us now put it in the affirmative form : 
"Any person may appeal to. such and such a court subject to 
the following conditions and regulations." Here the court 
has a wise discretion allowed it. It has the power of remitting 
certain of the conditions and regulations upon good cause 
therefor being shown. Which of these two forms should be 
used will always depend on the subject matter of the bill, or 
the intent of the legislature, and on the general policy of the 
state. 

Provisos should be kept out of his bill. If there has to be an 
exception, let him state it succinctly in a short section follow- 
ing the main one to which the exception is made. And let him 
remember that provisos are often construed strictly. They 
often endanger the entire bill. The courts in interpreting a 
proviso generally confine it to that which immediately pre- 
cedes, or to the section to which it is appended, unless it is 
clearly intended to have a wider scope. 

As to preambles, I should advise against their use unless 
the draftsman or his client thinks it essential to the passage of 
the measure. If he must have one, he should so frame his 
bill that it w T ill be intelligible without resorting to the pre- 
amble for explanation. 

The question of repeal is also a very important one. If 
the bill is liable to introduce sweeping changes in the law, 
the repealing clause should be given the most careful atten- 
tion. It would be well to make the repeal very broad so as 
to include all special and local laws, if the bill being drafted 
is meant to apply to the whole state. And it is well to insert 
in a repealing clause a sentence to the effect that the repeal of 
a prior law r will not operate to revive any law not in force 
at the time of such repeal. Curious legal complications have 

14 



arisen through disregard of this. Instead of repeating this 
clause at the end of every bill, it will be better practice to in- 
duce the legislature to enact a general law on the subject ap- 
plicable to all repeals. Some states of the Union have already 
enacted such a statute. 

Before leaving the subject of repeals let me remind the 
draftsman that repeals by implication are not favored by the 
courts. If he intends by his bill to widen the scope of a prior 
act, or to supersede it, let him see that the prior act is re- 
pealed in express terms. Further than this, he must not for- 
get that a repealing statute is generally construed retro- 
spectively; so that unless he intends otherwise, he should in- 
sert a provision in the repealing clause to the effect that such 
repeal will not affect any act done, right vested, duty imposed, 
penalty accrued or proceeding commenced, before the date 
of such repeal. In this connection one should remember that 
where there is a prior act on the same subject as the bill in 
hand, the latter will, if it become a law, be interpreted with 
reference to the former. 

In preparing a bill whereby certain things are prohibited 
or certain things are commanded, care should be taken that 
the enforcement of the act be given as a duty, in set terms to 
some department or to some official. Everybody's business 
is, alas, so often nobody's business. 

The draftsman should not follow several special terms with 
a general term. For example : "It shall be unlawful for any 
farmer, drover or any other person to, etc." The courts have 
applied to this sort of enumeration a rule called the "ejusdem 
generis" rule, whereby the application of the law is limited to 
persons or things of the kind or class specifically mentioned. 

Penal and criminal statutes are always strictly con- 
strued. The draftsman, then, should so frame such bills that 
their intent would be very clear, both as to meaning and 
scope. Further, in the preparation of a penal or criminal 
measure, or of a clause fixing a penalty, he should endeavor 
to adhere to the general policy of his state in such matters. 
He should, in this connection, examine the penalties fixed in 
statutes enacted in similar or analogous cases. Caution 



15 



should be exercised in fixing minimum penalties. My per- 
sonal opinion is that they should never be used. 

Again, in drafting penal or criminal measures where pro- 
vision is made for summary conviction, great care should be 
taken to see that the clause reads as clearly as possible. The 
draftsman must bear in mind, in this connection, the con- 
stitutional rights of the citizens of the state; and he must 
remember that statutes authorizing summary proceedings 
will be construed with great strictness, and must be exactly 
followed by those whose duty it is to enforce them. 

Statutes in derogation of the common law and in derogation 
of the common right will be strictly construed. 

In drawing a bill dealing with judicial procedure, the drafts- 
man must not fail to except from its operation actions at law 
already begun, unless he intends to include them. 

The draftsman should early learn to distinguish between 
statutes and provisions which are mandatory and those which 
are merely directory. Every bill should be so clearly drawn 
that there can be no ambiguity on this point. The courts 
have no hard and fast rule in their determination of questions 
of this nature. The meaning and intention of the legislature 
govern. If the bill is clearly and unequivocally drawn the 
intent of the legislature will be plain. 

In the preparation of amendments the draftsman should 
remember that the amendment becomes to all intents and 
purposes a part of the amended law. He should, then, when 
drafting the amendment, read over carefully the entire 
original statute with the amendment in its intended place. 
He will thus be better able to grasp clearly the full force and 
effect of his measure. It is well also to remember that un- 
less the contrary intention appears, the amendment will be 
construed as applying only to facts or things subsequent to its 
enactment. This despite the fact that the amendment be- 
comes, as I stated, a part of the original act. 

The careful draftsman will never draw any measure pur- 
porting to construe any prior law or part of a law. The right 
to construe statutes lies solely with the judiciary. It is a 
right that is sedulously and zealously guarded. The same end 
can be attained by the draftsman if he redrafts as a bill the 

16 



entire prior law, making the changes deemed necessary. Then 
the old law should be specifically repealed. 

He should not attempt to draw up a tax or revenue measure, 
or one amending such a law, unless he is thoroughly familiar 
with the system of taxation in his state. In many states, on 
account of ill considered tinkering with the laws, the state 
revenue system is in a most deplorably chaotic condition. 

Finally, as a parting suggestion to the draftsman, I should 
advise him, especially if he is a state official, to hold himself 
in readiness at all times to explain the reasons for the phrase- 
ology and arrangement of his bill, and to explain the effect of 
it if it become a law. To this end it would be well for him to 
brief up all his reasons in the same manner as a careful lawyer 
prepares his case. 

For the benefit of those who may wish to make a study of 
the subject of bill-drafting, I have added a list of works that 
will be very helpful : 

Eeal, Edward, 

Cardinal Rules of Legal Interpretation. 
London, 1908. 
Bentham, Jeremy, 

A General View of a Complete Code of Laws. 
Xomography or the Art of Inditing Laws. 
Bishop, Joel Prentiss, 

Commentaries on the Written Laws and Their In- 
terpretation. 
Boston, 1882. 
Black, Henry Campbell, 

Interpretation of Laws. 
St. Paul Minn., 1911. 
Black, Henry Campbell, 
Constitutional Law. 

St. Paul. Minn., 1910. 
Bruncken, Ernest, 

Hints on Drawing Legislative Bills. 
Legislative Reference Bulletin Xo. 1.. 
California State Librarv, 1908. 



17 



Buckalew, C. R., 

An Examination of the Constitution of Pennsyl- 
vania, 1883. 

Coode, George, 

Legislative Expression. 
1852 (second edition). 

Cooley, Thomas M., 

Constitutional Limitations. 
Boston, 1903. 

Craies, William F., 

A Treatise on Statute Law. 
London, 1907. 
Dicey, A. V., 

Conflict of Laws. 
London, 1908. 
Dwarris, Sir Fortunatus, 

Statutes and Constitutions. 
Albany, 1875. 
Endlich G. A., 

Interpretation of Statutes. 
Jersey City, N. J., 1888. 
Freund, Ernst, 

Police Powers. 

Chicago, 1904. 
Gael, Samuel Higgs, 

Legal and General Composition. 
London, 1840. 
Gilbert, Frank B., 

(Bill Drafting Bureau, New York Legislature). 

Statutes. Legislation Bulletin 22b. Review of 
Legislation, 1903. New York State Library. 
Goodnow r , F. J., 

Comparative Administration Law (two volumes). 
New York, 1893. 
Griggs, John W., 
Lawmaking. 

Reports American Bar Association. 1897. 



18 



Hutchins, F. E., 

Construction — Some of its uses and abuses. 

Reports Ohio State Bar Association. 1897. 
Ilbert, Sir Courtenay, 

Legislative Methods and Forms. 
Oxford, 1901. 
Lapp, John A., 

Hints on Bill-drafting. 

Bulletin No. 4. Legislative Reference Depart- 
ment. Indiana State Library, 1910. 
Law, the Making and Revision of. 

Papers read at Fourth Annual Meeting (1907) of the 
American Pol. Sci. Association. 
Lieber, Francis, 

Legal and Political Hermeneutics. 
St. Louis, 1880. 
Maxwell, Sir Peter Benson, 
Interpretation of Statutes. 
London — Toronto, 1905. 
Monett, F. S., 

Statutory Construction. 

Reports Ohio State Bar Association. 1895. 
New York State Library, 

Year Book of Legislation. 
Oliver, A. L., 

Statutory Revision. 

Reports Missouri Bar Association. 1908. 
Ordronaux, John, 

Constitutional Legislation. 
Philadelphia, 1891. 
Prentice, W. P., 
Police Powers. 

New York— Albany, 1894. 
Russell, Alfred, 
Police Powers. 

Chicago, 1900. 
Sanderson, J. F., 

Validity of Statutes in Pennsylvania. 
Philadelphia, 1898. 

19 



Sedwick, Theodore, 

Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law. 
New York, 1874. 
Smith, E. Fitch, 

Commentaries on Statute and Constitutional Law 
and Statutory Construction. 
Albany, 1848. 
Stimson, Frederic Jesup, 
Popular Lawmaking. 
New York, 1910. 
Stimson, Frederic Jesup, 

Federal and State Constitutions. 
Boston, 1908. 

Stimson, Frederic Jesup, 

American Statute Law (two volumes). 
Boston, 1886. 
Story, Joseph, 

Conflict of Law r s. 
Boston, 1883. 
Sutherland, J. G. 

Statutory Constitution (second edition by John 
Lewis). 

Chicago, 1904. 
Symonds, Arthur, 

The Mechanics of Lawmaking. 
London, 1835. 
Thring, Henry. (Lord) 
Practical Legislation. 

Toronto — Boston, 1902. 
Wade, William P., 
Retroactive Laws. 
St. Louis, 1880. 
Wharton, Francis, 
Conflict of Laws. 
Rochester, 1905. 
White, Thomas Raeburn, 

Commentaries on the Constitution of Pennsylvania. 
Philadelphia, 1907. 

20 



Wilberforce, Edward, 
Statute Law. 

London, 1881. 
Willard, Ashton R. 

A Legislative Hand Book. 

Boston— New York, 1890. 
Wyman, Bruce, 

Principles of the Administrative Law Governing the 
Relations of Public Officers. 

St. Paul, 1903. 



21 




(22) 






fe*s« 



